Restore a permitted memory revision while checking for concurrent edits, ensuring the correct version is recovered only when the expected version matches.
Restore a permitted revision while checking concurrent edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes | ||
| revision_id | Yes | ||
| expected_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation-like operation. It mentions permission gating ('permitted') and concurrency checking, but does not explain what is overwritten, whether a new revision is created, what happens on conflict, or what permissions are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words. However, for a three-parameter revision-restoration operation with no annotations or output schema, the extreme brevity leaves it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently. It omits return behavior, conflict handling, permission requirements, and the meaning of two required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three required parameters. It only indirectly alludes to expected_version through 'concurrent edits'; memory_id and revision_id receive no semantic explanation beyond their titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: restoring a revision. It implies memory context via the tool name, but it does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools such as list_memory_revisions or update_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'checking concurrent edits' hints at a conflict-checking scenario but does not route the agent among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.